The Debates: Three President/One VP - Page 4

Actually, I thought the debate was pretty even and I would guess it a draw.

I thought the most potentially devastating bit was one that caught Romney completely off-guard and he failed to knock out of the park.  That is when Obamalied about calling the Libya incident a terror attack the next day in the Rose Garden.  Of course it was a closing remark that definitely appeared to be speaking in generalities as opposed to the specific incident on 9/11.  Romney just looked floored that the President could deny it, and then when the moderator back him up on it that sent him spinning.  Romney could have simply come back with why did the President over the next week say it was under investigation and wouldn't refer to it as a terrorist attack on Letterman or The View. 

The President was a LOT getter tonight (hard to imagine him being worse).  I think he was still wrong on most of the issues, but he was engaged and fighting tonight unlike the first debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Actually, I thought the debate was pretty even and I would guess it a draw.

 

I thought the most potentially devastating bit was one that caught Romney completely off-guard and he failed to knock out of the park.  That is when Obamalied about calling the Libya incident a terror attack the next day in the Rose Garden.  Of course it was a closing remark that definitely appeared to be speaking in generalities as opposed to the specific incident on 9/11.  Romney just looked floored that the President could deny it, and then when the moderator back him up on it that sent him spinning.  Romney could have simply come back with why did the President over the next week say it was under investigation and wouldn't refer to it as a terrorist attack on Letterman or The View. 

 

The President was a LOT getter tonight (hard to imagine him being worse).  I think he was still wrong on most of the issues, but he was engaged and fighting tonight unlike the first debate.

According the the transcripts of Obama's speech, he referred to it as an "act of terror" when he spoke in the Rose Garden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Again, highly disappointed that Romney didn't get into any specifics regarding his tax plan.  I would love if rates could drop for everyone while being budget neutral.

Romney's approach to the tax issue is far more cerebral, but it leaves him vulnerable to charges that he has no plan.

Recognizing that Congress actually spends the money, and that any serious tax overhaul in the U.S. will need bipartisan support, Romney is proposing to set a series of markers that will be used as frameworks to negotiate a comprehensive tax deal with Congress.

He also (astutely) recognizes that negotiating through a party platform hasn't worked for anybody (left or right), since the first thing the other side does is try to get you to break a significant promise, so that they will have something to beat you over the head with four years later.

If he wins, Romney will be the best-positioned President in several decades to reduce the cumbersome U.S. tax code to a normal-sized set of regulations.

Democrats are smart to hammer him on the Mortgage Interest deduction, because they know that any smart person should seek to cancel that deduction. Despite its extreme popularity in the U.S., it's always been absurd to grant tax relief to someone as a reward for holding large amounts of debt. That's the exact opposite of what a civilized country should do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

 

Romney's approach to the tax issue is far more cerebral, but it leaves him vulnerable to charges that he has no plan.

 

Recognizing that Congress actually spends the money, and that any serious tax overhaul in the U.S. will need bipartisan support, Romney is proposing to set a series of markers that will be used as frameworks to negotiate a comprehensive tax deal with Congress.

 

He also (astutely) recognizes that negotiating through a party platform hasn't worked for anybody (left or right), since the first thing the other side does is try to get you to break a significant promise, so that they will have something to beat you over the head with four years later.

 

If he wins, Romney will be the best-positioned President in several decades to reduce the cumbersome U.S. tax code to a normal-sized set of regulations.

 

Democrats are smart to hammer him on the Mortgage Interest deduction, because they know that any smart person should seek to cancel that deduction. Despite its extreme popularity in the U.S., it's always been absurd to grant tax relief to someone as a reward for holding large amounts of debt. That's the exact opposite of what a civilized country should do.

Then how about he shows us several ways that it could be negotiated to remain budget neutral?  Outline 3 or 4 scenarios with specifics to demonstrate that such a negotiation process could work. This way, he isn't nailed down to one particular plan, but still demonstrates the viability of that level of reduction in tax rates and the viability of the negotiation process itself. Until then, I have nothing to go on.  I'm not about to invest in someone who just keeps saying, "I know what I'm doing, believe me."  

The Fox and Republican crowd (one and the same?) are in a twitch over Candy.

Though personally I would not have chosen her as a moderator, she was in.

Now, as for the result?

The party of personally responsibility (you know, 47% of Americans take none) doesn't take responsibility for Mittens' inability to control the debate, but blame everybody else.

- - - - -

Ann's face at the end was priceless; she knew it didn't go well.

Last time, Dems agreed Obama didn't perform well.  They didn't blame the moderator nor Mittens.

This time, Mittens got schooled and , well, it wasn't his fault.

Too funny.

Good old Mittens lost this one. Obama was right in his face and had the fortitude to confront Romney with the lies Romney brought up in front of the audience and Obama himself.His wife Ann knew Romney stunk with his answers tonight.One more debate and we shall see what both candidates do in Florida next week.I thought about Romney and I cannot trust this man to become president with deceitful ways and lies over and over again.Obama is not perfect but I trust him more .
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Romney was right.

 

 

If by INSTINCT, you mean bias that caused you to jump out and defend your preferred candidate on a very damaging point for him.

Yes he was. The transcript shows that Obama called the Libyan incident an act of 'senseless violence' and proceeded to talk about accommodating religious beliefs.

For all those who jumped on "Romney's lies" in the first debate, are they going to acknowledge that Obama's best moment in the 2nd debate is when he was lying through his teeth?

And lying with the full support and assistance of the moderator, no less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Romney was right.

 

 

If by INSTINCT, you mean bias that caused you to jump out and defend your preferred candidate on a very damaging point for him.

 

Yes he was. The transcript shows that Obama called the Libyan incident an act of 'senseless violence' and proceeded to talk about accommodating religious beliefs.

 

For all those who jumped on "Romney's lies" in the first debate, are they going to acknowledge that Obama's best moment in the 2nd debate is when he was lying through his teeth?

 

And lying with the full support and assistance of the moderator, no less.

I'm really mystified at the level of controversy being generated with respect to that single speech. The questions over the mixed messages coming from different government departments in the following weeks seem legitimate, and possibly important, and Romney should not have allowed himself to get deflected from that more profitable angle.

Going after Obama for his comments in the Rose Garden, whether one feels it backfired or not, just makes no sense to me. I'm assuming that everyone has, by now, heard the speech or read the transcript. In my opinion it was a good speech and appropriate for the occasion. He condemned the violence in very clear terms, and made the comment that no acts of terror would defeat us, which, given the single subject of the speech, clearly refers to this event. He also commented, quite reasonably and entirely correctly, that, in contrast to others, the US respects all faiths and resists any efforts to denigrate them. He did not mention the video. If Romney had given that speech I suspect that Republicans would have applauded it.

Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson's statement on last night's debate:

It's the lying that gets to people. The White House shamelessly changing the history of their response and being backed up by a biased moderator.

CNN itself reported on Sept. 20: "The White House, for the first time Thursday, declared the attack that killed Stevens and three other people a terrorist attack."

The day after in the Rose Garden? Yeah, right.

Now here is a debate I'm actually interested in watching:

http://www.freedominfonetwork.org/Debate

4 confirmed presidential candidates attending:

Gary Johnson - Libertarian Party

Jill Stein - Green Party

Virgil Goode - Constitution Party

Rocky Anderson - Justice Party

Mark your calendars: October 23rd, 8 pm Central

Romney got what he deserved in that debate. Finally American's get to see the unpatriotic liar that Romney is, getting slammed on live national television. Romney's been in such a hurry to demonise the president he hadn't even remembered what Obama had said. Devine justice there folks.

These pics sum up the debate-

It really is quite amusing to see the Romney and Obama supporters both declare their guy "won" the last debate.

We've even got Hands declaring Obama won based on Romney's facial expressions in 2 photos - no mention of anything specific said by either candidate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Romney got what he deserved in that debate. Finally American's get to see the unpatriotic liar that Romney is, getting slammed on live national television. Romney's been in such a hurry to demonise the president he hadn't even remembered what Obama had said. Devine justice there folks.

 

These pics sum up the debate-

 

 

I finally watched most of it tonight (darned recorder cut off the last 30 minutes).  Mittens was sweating and turning all colors.  Literally, you could feel he squirm.

Another pathetic demonstration of sock puppets doing their corporate masters' bidding. 

Either candidate, if permitted, could bury the other. For example, Obama could bring up the Bain Capital issue and expose what that was really about - the wholesale importation of cocaine into the US, and the funding of Central American death squads in the 1980s. 

My junior high school's debating society was of a higher standard than these infantile charades labelled as "debates".

Obama: "...when I was president"

Is Obama admitting defeat? Did he unwittingly concede the race right then and there?! Does he believe unicorns really exist?!!?!?

I think this picture answers all those questions and more:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

It really is quite amusing to see the Romney and Obama supporters both declare their guy "won" the last debate.

 

We've even got Hands declaring Obama won based on Romney's facial expressions in 2 photos - no mention of anything specific said by either candidate.

This from the guy who posts consistently vary between one line pithy quips and quotes from the founding fathers, and when you do post something relevant to the current political discussion, you very rarely respond to the details. I post mostly about the details and implications of proposed and current policies, and when I post a brief, but highly significant debate event and some pics, you add another pithy one liner and accuse me of not going into detail. Priceless, and yet consistent jazz.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

This from the guy who posts consistently vary between one line pithy quips and quotes from the founding fathers, and when you do post something relevant to the current political discussion, you very rarely respond to the details. I post mostly about the details and implications of proposed and current policies, and when I post a brief, but highly significant debate event and some pics, you add another pithy one liner and accuse me of not going into detail. Priceless, and yet consistent jazz.

Thanks for the compliments, but you missed the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

 

I finally watched most of it tonight (darned recorder cut off the last 30 minutes).  Mittens was sweating and turning all colors.  Literally, you could feel he squirm.

Each of every one of those thirty minutes is worth watching. If you thought Romney was wayward earlier, watch those last thirty minutes. Obama exudes confidence and Romney sweats even more whilst sounding like a broken record. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Romney got what he deserved in that debate. Finally American's get to see the unpatriotic liar that Romney is, getting slammed on live national television. Romney's been in such a hurry to demonise the president he hadn't even remembered what Obama had said. Devine justice there folks.

 

These pics sum up the debate-

 

This analysis is really funny.  I saw comments from the Frank Luntz focus group in Nevada of undecided/independent voters and Romney got good feedback from them.  I'll admit that Obama did a LOT better, and I'm willing to concede it was probably a draw but to here Obama supporters talk about it is just crazy.  I think the first sweep thru the focus group had like 7 of 8 people describe Romney favorably.  Yeah, I guess he was definitely perceived as weak and a loser.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

Another pathetic demonstration of sock puppets doing their corporate masters' bidding. 

 

Either candidate, if permitted, could bury the other. For example, Obama could bring up the Bain Capital issue and expose what that was really about - the wholesale importation of cocaine into the US, and the funding of Central American death squads in the 1980s. 

 

My junior high school's debating society was of a higher standard than these infantile charades labelled as "debates".

I suppose that you also subscribe to the theory that Cheney was really the head of a child prostitution ring for Halliburton.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Where did you learn that?

I don't recall specifically.  I read something about what are bunker-busting capabilities are (or what we are told they are).  

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Perhaps an unbalanced moderator would stop asking a candidate to address hypothetical failure while ignoring the very real failure we have in office now.

 

Interesting tidbit. Across three debates, Republican candidates have gotten almost 9 fewer minutes of talking time even when it seems like they are having to be aggressive or interrupting to get to speak.

 

Tonight Romney was given 4 fewer minutes of talk time during the debate. He made some devastating points even while watching the dealer (moderator) deal from the bottom for the other candidate.

I thought Crowley was pretty bad.  First, she looked terrible (shouldn't be an issue I suppose, but let's face it, it is).  Secondly, she clearly gave Obama more time and more opportunity to respond.  The Libya discussion was pathetic, with her even admitting she was wrong later.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

According the the transcripts of Obama's speech, he referred to it as an "act of terror" when he spoke in the Rose Garden.

 

 

 

No.  He referenced it in general, saying "No act of terror will [deter the American people]"  At no time did he specifically refer to it as terror.  In fact, he refused to call it terrorism despite being directly asked what it was...for TWO WEEKS after the attack.   Even the moderator admits Romney was right.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson's statement on last night's debate:

 

Did Romney propose any government involvement in GM?  This is the one item in his statement that seems way off base to me.  Romney's position was to let GM go through the legal bankruptcy process and keep the government out of it entirely, or so I thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

The Fox and Republican crowd (one and the same?) are in a twitch over Candy.

 

Though personally I would not have chosen her as a moderator, she was in.

 

Now, as for the result?

 

The party of personally responsibility (you know, 47% of Americans take none) doesn't take responsibility for Mittens' inability to control the debate, but blame everybody else.

 

- - - - -

 

Ann's face at the end was priceless; she knew it didn't go well.

 

 

Last time, Dems agreed Obama didn't perform well.  They didn't blame the moderator nor Mittens.

 

This time, Mittens got schooled and , well, it wasn't his fault.

 

Too funny.

LOL.  This, from the same Left who blamed everything from the altitude, to the President getting disturbing news right before the debate (merely speculation, of course), to Jim Leher not letting Obama talk.  AYFKM?  Crowley was not a good moderator, regardless of who you think won.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Romney got what he deserved in that debate. 

 

And what was that?  A President with a fake smile who presented no plan for the future and lied about his record?  

Wow.  An unpatriotic liar?  Really Hands?  I guess that's all you guys have left.  

Actually, Romney didn't "demonize" the President, he tore apart his disastrous record.  He was also RIGHT about what Obama said.  Even Candy Crowley thinks so.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

This analysis is really funny.  I saw comments from the Frank Luntz focus group in Nevada of undecided/independent voters and Romney got good feedback from them.  I'll admit that Obama did a LOT better, and I'm willing to concede it was probably a draw but to here Obama supporters talk about it is just crazy.  I think the first sweep thru the focus group had like 7 of 8 people describe Romney favorably.  Yeah, I guess he was definitely perceived as weak and a loser.

Agreed completely, though I think Romney won pretty solidly.  The Luntz group was comprised mostly of voters who voted for Obama in 2008.  At least 70% them said they now were voting for Romney.  Say what you like about Luntz (I find him to be kind of a tool), but he knows what he's doing with focus groups.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

Did Romney propose any government involvement in GM?  This is the one item in his statement that seems way off base to me.  Romney's position was to let GM go through the legal bankruptcy process and keep the government out of it entirely, or so I thought.

Romney's current position on the auto bailouts is that he is opposed to them, although he has said in the past that he would have favored government intervention AFTER the bankruptcy process.

"Fiscal Hawk" Paul Ryan, however, voted for the auto bailouts. He also supported the bank bailouts.

Haven't posted my reactions to the debate:  Here goes:  

• Romney won, but not as big as last time.  Still, he won by more than I anticipated.  
• Obama was much better, more energetic.  
• Obama came off as borderline angry at times.  
• Obama looked very bad walking away from Romney while the two were engaged in questioning each other.  
• Romney missed on the Libya question.  Obama made a demonstrably false claim and the moderator agreed with him.  This took Romney off message. 
• Romney did not get equal time, nor equal opportunity to respond.  
• The questions were clearly tailored for Obama, particularly on women's rights and differences from Bush.  I can't believe they actually let that last one through. 

Best Obama line:  My pension isn't as big as yours.  

Best Romney line: Of course the math adds up.  I've balanced budgets for 25 years.  

Winning issues for Romney:  Energy, taxes, business and executive experience, focus on jobs.  

Winning issues for Obama:  Women's rights, healthcare, 47% attack, Libya/fallen soldiers

Most surprising things:  Romney was even more aggressive and came off as more compassionate and likable than Obama.  Also, Obama interrupting as much as he did and walking away with his back turned.  

Most unsurprising things:  Media calling Obama the winner, Obama not looking down, neither candidate delivering a knock-out.  

To all those who are claiming that Obama won convincingly and are pointing to a handful of polls showing a pretty narrow win, consider this:  The challenger does not need to win.  The challenger simply needs to be a plausible President.  Romney has unquestionably crossed that threshold.  Moreover, there was more than one focus group with truly undecided voters who flocked to Romney after the debate.  A draw equals a win for Romney.   

Current TV write:  Obama didn't do enough.   

U.S. News and World Report:  Romney wins.

The point?  It doesn't matter if the Left thinks Obama won.  All Romney has to do is show up.

Also, try watching a real analysis.

Need I say more? 

And SDW, what Romney's best line according to you, actually was is

""Of course they add up. I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years and balanced the budget." 

He actually killed a lot of businesses for his own personal gain and used government money to do it, all while shipping jobs overseas. If that's his best line I'd sure love to know his worst! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Need I say more? 

 

 

 

And SDW, what Romney's best line according to you, actually was is

 

""Of course they add up. I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years and balanced the budget." 

He actually killed a lot of businesses for his own personal gain and used government money to do it, all while shipping jobs overseas. If that's his best line I'd sure love to know his worst! 

LOL, hands.  You are really going to have a rude awakening on November 7th.  

Gallup Likely Voters:  Romney 51.  Obama 45.  

A very telling photo from right after last nights debate-

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

 

LOL, hands.  You are really going to have a rude awakening on November 7th.  

 

 

Gallup Likely Voters:  Romney 51.  Obama 45.  

Like it or not, some voters aren't so much interested in what is said, but how it's said. That's what threw Obama in the first debate. Wait till we see how this debate effects the numbers, and also keep in mind that the election will be decided by the electoral college, in other words who wins what states, not the popular vote count. That said Obama bill get a boost from this debate and the next which will see him win both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

A very telling photo from right after last nights debate-

 

Please tell us what's so telling about it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Where did you learn that?

 

I don't recall specifically.  I read something about what are bunker-busting capabilities are (or what we are told they are).  

 

Right, but it is just a matter of depth. Go deep enough and they won't reach. Conventional munitions cannot penetrate more than a few hundred feet of rock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

According the the transcripts of Obama's speech, he referred to it as an "act of terror" when he spoke in the Rose Garden.

 

No.  He referenced it in general, saying "No act of terror will [deter the American people]"  At no time did he specifically refer to it as terror.  In fact, he refused to call it terrorism despite being directly asked what it was...for TWO WEEKS after the attack.   Even the moderator admits Romney was right.  

 

I think that is a contrived argument. He was talking about the attack and he said that "no act of terror will....". By saying that he did not "specifically refer to it as terror" - what exactly do you mean? Referenced what in general? What else do you think he was talking about?

I agree that the subsequent inconsistencies regarding the announcements of who was behind it deserve some explanation, but this is just contrived semantics. And so yes - I disagree with the moderator - the fact that she defended Obama and then somewhat retracted still does not give her current opinion any more authority than anyone else's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I'm really mystified at the level of controversy being generated with respect to that single speech. The questions over the mixed messages coming from different government departments in the following weeks seem legitimate, and possibly important, and Romney should not have allowed himself to get deflected from that more profitable angle.

 

Going after Obama for his comments in the Rose Garden, whether one feels it backfired or not, just makes no sense to me. I'm assuming that everyone has, by now, heard the speech or read the transcript. In my opinion it was a good speech and appropriate for the occasion. He condemned the violence in very clear terms, and made the comment that no acts of terror would defeat us, which, given the single subject of the speech, clearly refers to this event. He also commented, quite reasonably and entirely correctly, that, in contrast to others, the US respects all faiths and resists any efforts to denigrate them. He did not mention the video. If Romney had given that speech I suspect that Republicans would have applauded it.

 

It isn't really controversy. It is more about showing the actions of the Obama administration. The administration spent two weeks declaring it wasn't a terrorist attack. They had a clear reason for this in that it is an election and they didn't want to be accused of letting Americans die, especially in American embassies, at the hands of terrorists. The last time this happened was in 1979 and we know it didn't turn out well for the incumbent.

 

Obama's statement in the garden declared what his understanding of the situation was and how it would be addressed. It was clearly a complete MISUNDERSTANDING or perhaps if one is feeling conspiratorial, an outright lie. He assigned all action to a YouTube video and a protest that turned violent. Instead it has proven to be a terrorist attack and the information is revealing that little was done to prepare for or prevent it.

 

Now on the flip side of this, and I addressed this in another forum but didn't really get to it here, there is the issue of Iran and going nuclear. Iran already has, if I recall correctly seven sanctions against them. The Israeli Prime Minister addressed the U.N. holding up a picture of a bomb with a red line indicating when military action would be taken. He assured the U.N. it wouldn't happen before the election but gave a timeline of no more than a year. Biden in the debate declared that Israeli intelligence and our intelligence were in complete agreement, that there was no chance of a nuke any time soon and that anyone who decreed contrary was warmongering. Clearly the inteligence doesn't match what Israeli is saying because Israel is drawing red lines when planes and bombs are going to be flying.

 

So the point is that Biden and the administration are asking us to TRUST our intelligence which they declare states that Iran isn't going to have a nuke anytime soon and to suggest otherwise is saber rattling and desiring war. They declare this is also Israel's position. They also declare what happend with the Libya attack an intelligence failure and thus while the buck stops at them for going after who did it, they aren't to blame.

 

You can't have it both ways though. You can't say the intelligence is indisputable and you are a warmonger, yet also say intelligence failed us, people died and it isn't our fault but I'll get the bastard that did the crime.

I still think that one has to separate that speech from the contradictory messages of the following couple of weeks. Firstly, the speech was given in the immediate aftermath of the event, and the detail that it contained was appropriately confined to a summary of the event. Secondly, it would have been premature to speculate on the causes, but that didn't matter; it was an act of terror whether it was in response to the video or it was a planned operation, and so Obama had no issue with assigning the "act of terror" label.

The legitimate issue that Romney started on, but got deflected from, was the subsequent release of details on the provenance of the attack, and I don't disagree with your comments on that except to say that it is not yet clear to me whether there was a motive related to the election - primarily because it makes no sense to think that strategy would have worked for long enough to be effective.

As for Biden's comments on Iran, I don't see the inconsistency with Israel's position. Indicating a line that cannot be crossed without incurring military intervention is not inconsistent with saying that Iran does not have the capability yet, and that intelligence will give us advance warning.

And, finally, I do not see a connection between the failure of intelligence to predict the attack in Libya and the likely ability to track Iran's nuclear progress. Different kinds of intelligence entirely.